In the Matter of Fernando Fabela Chavez (Review Dept. 2021) 5 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 783
Court: California State Bar Court, Review Department
Judge: Purcell, J.
Charges Brought Against
Attorney Fernando Fabela Chavez was charged with three counts of professional misconduct arising from his failure to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.20 following a prior suspension. The counts included: (1) failure to obey rule 9.20 by not filing required notices of suspension with courts and parties, (2) making false statements in a compliance declaration amounting to moral turpitude under Business and Professions Code § 6106, and (3) seeking to mislead a judge under § 6068(d). The third count was dismissed for lack of intent evidence.
Defenses
Chavez contended he never received the Supreme Court’s March 10 2017 suspension order and thus could not have willfully failed to comply. The Review Department rejected this claim, holding that under Evidence Code § 664 it is presumed the Supreme Court clerk properly served the order. The court found his claim incredible given he had already begun transferring cases and retained counsel to assist with compliance before the order issued. He also argued he had removed himself from four affected cases, but the panel noted he failed to provide required certified-mail notice and remained attorney of record when the order took effect. Reliance on staff or counsel was not a defense because compliance responsibility rested solely on him.
Mitigation
The court credited substantial mitigation for Chavez’s extraordinary good character, supported by testimony from respected legal and civic leaders who described him as honest, trustworthy, and community-minded. Additional mitigation was granted for his cooperation with the State Bar through a detailed factual stipulation that conserved court resources. However, the panel declined to credit mitigation for reliance on counsel because Chavez had received clear written instructions for compliance and still failed to act.
Outcome
The Review Department found Chavez culpable of failing to comply with rule 9.20 and of making grossly negligent misrepresentations in his compliance declaration. Although disbarment was not warranted given his mitigation and partial efforts to comply, the court imposed progressive discipline: a three-year stayed suspension, three years’ probation, and two years of actual suspension continuing until Chavez demonstrates rehabilitation and fitness to practice under Standard 1.2(c)(1). He was again ordered to comply with rule 9.20 and provide proof of compliance during probation.
Sanctions Table
| Violation / Issue | Applicable Rule / Statute | Finding |
|---|---|---|
| Failure to file suspension notices | Rule 9.20(a)(4) | Culpable (willful violation) |
| False compliance declaration | Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106 | Moral turpitude by gross negligence |
| Failure to notify clients properly | Rule 9.20(b) | Violation established |
| Failure to obey court order | Bus. & Prof. Code § 6103 | Aggravating factor (prior case) |
| Progressive discipline imposed | Standard 1.2(c)(1) | Two years’ actual suspension |